Well made film on a low budget - Screw Hollywood, this movie rocks.

Rating: Null/10 (21 July 2003)

In this age of blockbuster garbage, and pretentious independent films, it takes a great script and a good director to make a movie that isn't laughable. It's near impossible to find a recent movie (barring comedies) that has had an impact on this viewer, the way 28 DAYS LATER did.
Now, many people have been heard to say "this movie looks like crap, it's shot on Digital Video." To them, I say, "SNOB!" How dare you rank on a movie because of the medium it was shot on. Last time I checked, many films pre-CITIZEN KANE were pretty grainy and often left with sound that was riddled with crackles, hiss, and pops. But, mind you, those films are "genius", "innovative" and "masterful".
The fact remains, 28 DAYS LATER is a good story. The post-apocalyptic "zombie" (mind you, no where in the movie was the term zombie used, they were simply infected.) thrillers I have seen to date have all been ridiculous, poorly shot (on film mind you), terribly written pieces of garbage. 28 DAYS LATER surpasses the generic and trite territory of a horror film - in fact, it is not a horror film, it is a fine piece of thriller cinema.
Boyle does an impeccable job moving from one plot point to another, keeping the entire thing plausible, if not possible, and in fact - suspending disbelief for an entire audience - using a budget that could barely support a middle class family. If every film made spent as much time in its conceptualization and plot development, and less time on making sure they have the camera on the right F-stop and running at the right ASA speed, the film world would be a hell of a lot better.
In conclusion - The down to earth intellectualism of 28 days later is left me with a grin - and the fact that a brilliant movie can be brought to life without squandering all of Zaire's Gross National Product, makes me feel a little better about the future of movies.